A Broken Chain

Today in class we began discussing some of the issues in  Tim O'Brien's Going After Cacciato. One of the issues I brought up was the apparent broken chain of command. Throughout the book no respect is given to officers by the men, something extremely different than what we have seen in the previous literature we read. Sure Achilles defied Agamemnon's authority by not fighting the Trojans, but I consider that to be an exception in a war to which defiance of a Kings rule usually led to death as a punishment. In Killer Angels not many of the uneducated soldiers even knew what they were fighting for, yet they still followed the orders of their leaders without hesitation. The chain of command was still very much intact in both of these books. However, in Going After Cacciato the chain of command is severely severed. Not once in the book is an officer given respect purely because of rank, and the word sir is not even uttered. Even worse, the men openly mock and make fun of Lt. Sidney Martin, their commanding officer. Martin is disliked by the men because he chooses to do things by the book instead of taking the easy way out. When he orders his men to search a bunker, they disobey and eventually he is forced to search the bunker himself. This kind of attitude would have been unacceptable in any other war. If it had existed in World War II or before, the disobeying soldiers would surely have faced terrible consequences. In Vietnam however, the punishment was simply being court-marshaled. This is a large reason for the soldiers abusive behavior, because they were not afraid of the consequences. In the Civil War, deserters were shot on sight, and even if they came back they were to be executed. The notion of traveling half way around the world just to bring one meaningless deserter back would be absolutely crazy for soldiers of that era. While deserters don't necessarily deserve to be shot on sight, I do believe that traveling after one is pretty useless.  Soldier's morale played a huge part in America's losing effort in Vietnam; something that would never have happened if the consequences were harsher. 

Also, the controversy of Vietnam played a role in the disrespect given to commanders. There were soldiers who did not believe in the war, yet had been thrown into action anyways because of the draft. This feeling of mal-contempt (sp?) was obviously trickled down into the soldiers attitude of Vietnam, and was displayed by giving no respect at all to officers. 

Mental Casualties

Last week during my presentation with Tess, a certain boy in the second row (he’s short with black curly hair, a fake tooth and plays soccer) started laughing inappropriately when I said Civil War bands often serenaded their leaders. I did not intend for it to be a funny fact, but for some reason he took it that way. I’m now going to try and make him feel terrible for laughing out loud during my presentation by delving deeper into the reasons for these late night sing-a-longs.

I’ve never been in war and probably never will be, but I can imagine what it would be like. Today, soldiers often bring electronics to Iraq with them, whether it’s an MP3 player, a PSP, or a laptop, to take their minds off the war during their spare time. I think everyone understands bands in the Civil War served the same purpose. War can take just as much of a psychological toll on soldiers if not more than any physical beating. The psychological effect of combat is a concept that many people tend to overlook, which encompasses a wide variety of processes and negative impacts, all of which must be taken into consideration in any assessment of the costs of war.

Just a game of Risk?

Our class’ game of Risk made me ponder more than simply what strategy is best to take control of North America. The other day when we were busy slaughtering the blue team, I realized my thinking while playing was pretty similar to how General Lee thought during the Civil War. Moving troops to attack Brazil, I had no regard for their safety and didn’t even care to think about the cubes’ well being. While on a larger scale and dealing with actual people instead of wooden blocks, I could see how Lee’s disregard for his men made sense. His focus and determination to win an objective completely blinded him from the sensitivity that other leaders had towards their troops. For Lee, playing a game of Risk would be no different than ordering Picket’s Charge. While some may view this as a terrible trait for such a powerful man such as Lee to have, I disagree. Lee’s hardness gives assurance that the General is doing everything he possibly can to win the war.

I also began to ponder how this thinking has changed since the Civil War. No longer are wars fought with a Napoleonic mindset, where the amount of deaths suffered is meaningless as long as the battle is won. Today, each and every soldier’s life is appreciated in the armed forces. This is in large part due to the development of the mass media. As people become aware of the growing deaths, distaste for war soon follows. The death toll of American soldiers in the Iraqi War is currently 4,083 troops. Compared to the 618,000 killed in the Civil War, I think it’s safe to say that our concern for life has dramatically increased since then.

Southern Victory

I’m sure at one point everyone has asked him or herself the same question: What would have happened if the South had won the Civil War? Understandably this is an extremely large question and on some levels should not even be addressed, but oh well; here I go.

Maybe the most obvious difference would be the issue of equal rights. Today, it is hard to imagine a world where certain people are intentionally discriminated against based off of some sort of physical difference. I believe that even if the South had won the Civil War, slavery would not exist even today. I do believe, however, that America would not be nearly as deep into eliminating racism as we are today. There would not be a black President, and the Civil Rights Movement might not have even happened yet.

Now to the next and even more mysterious issue: Would the United States still even be the United States? While some may think that if the South won the United States would split into two different countries, I do not believe so. The North and the South had too many interconnecting parts to suddenly be split into to nations. If the South had won changes would be made to affect America as a whole, but I do not believe that the country would just split into two.

I’m sure that there are a million other changes that would come with a Southern victory, but these two seem to be the most important.

War Sucks

The real bad thing about war is that it is never clear cut - no matter which side you are on, no matter how just your cause is, it is more than likely that some of your enemies will be good people and that some of your allies will be bad people. More than likely, there are some Iraqi insurgents who honestly believe we are bad, and that they are protecting their families and friends - essentially good people who just want to protect what is precious to them, wrong as they are about us. We saw from that prison incident that our own forces have a dark side, as well.

Still, the cause of all war is intolerance, ignorance, greed, and bigotry - dark and evil things. If we could minimize these things, war would be much less likely to occur. Unfortunately, those things are seemingly ingrained into our species, and it's tough to get over them. War will likely exist so long as humans do - we've all got our somethings to protect, and there are those who would try to take those somethings from us. But in protecting our somethings, we oft destroy the something's of others.

A Warrior's Self-interest

The other day in class, I made a comment that by providing Patroclus with his armor and allowing the Myrmidons to fight, Achilles was being selfish. I sensed that many people either did not agree with this statement or were confused by it, so I would like to further explain myself. Throughout the Iliad, numerous attempts are made by several people to try and talk Achilles into returning to battle. All of these attempts fail, and thus show Achilles' inability to swallow his pride. This newest attempt by Patroclus is different however; Achilles comes to a compromise. Achilles agrees to let Patroclus use his armor and let the Myrmidons fight only because the Trojans are on the verge of destroying the Acheans' ships and thus keeping Achilles from traveling home. If keeping the ships safe is so important to Achilles, why did he not just choose to fight himself? The answer is self-interest, which is a key character-trait throughout the Iliad. Almost all the large characters in the time of the Iliad undeniably display selfish attitudes, mostly in an attempt to gain personal glory.

For community service day I went to USO and was able to talk with many American troops who were on their way to fight overseas. I was curious as to whether soldiers’ self-interest existed in today’s war as it did in the time of the Iliad. Looking around the terminal the answer became increasingly clear. The somber and morose attitude of the soldiers showed none of them cared about personal glory, only survival. I began talking to a soldier who was only two years older than me. He told me that joining the army was a terrible decision and that he wish he would have stayed in school. He then went on to say that there was no comradery in his unit at all and everyone only looked out for themselves. In this case it’s easy to understand why soldiers would be self-interested on the battlefield; on the verge of death a person would do anything to survive. Today’s soldiers are just as selfish as Achilles and other warriors of the past, just for a different and more understandable reason.

War on Terror or War on Terrorism?

The intentions and actions taken immediately following the September 11, 2001 attacks were consistent with the goal of fighting terrorism, however since then the action taken has been misguided and misdirected. According to President Bush, the United States is now fighting a “War on Terror.” A distinction between “War on Terror” and “War on Terrorism” must be understood. This war on terror does not directly, and frankly, cannot serve as a solution to the conflict that led to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001. A “War on Terror” could be considered a fight against all acts of terror not necessarily from any terrorist or organized group, but what could essentially be one-person simply bringing harm to another group of people. In this sense it is not the United States’ responsibility to police the rest of the world and ensure the safety of every human being. However, a war against terrorism does offer an answer to the terrorist attacks that America regrettably experienced almost seven years ago. A war on terrorism would seek to eliminate terrorist organizations that have a global reach and whose existence and ideals pose an immediate threat not only to the United States, but also to other civilizations and people who encompass a Western way of thought. Whether it is a "War on Terror" or a "War on Terrorism," the United States must now make a decision about whether an American military presence in the Middle East is beneficial.